Obama and Birth Control

Katherine - posted on 02/10/2012 ( 86 moms have responded )

65,420

232

5195

Obama has offered churches an accommodation in the contraceptive insurance brouhaha. Churches per se, and their associated outreach programs and businesses (e.g., schools, hospitals, thrift shops and even traditional businesses) are no longer required to offer contraceptive insurance as part of their health insurance package. However, if a church does not offer contraceptives in its insurance, the insurance company must offer it free.





This is just a blip obviously. The article is too long to post, but here is the link: http://politics.gather.com/viewArticle.a...





Huh???

MOST HELPFUL POSTS

Mary - posted on 02/11/2012

3,348

31

123

As someone who worked for a Catholic hospital all of her professional life, this pisses me off to no end (and I was raised Catholic). There should be NO compromise on this issue.



If were were really concerned about upholding the principles of religious freedom the ability to delete contraception as part of the insurance coverage offered would have been eliminated long ago. Allowing any faith-based employer to fine tune the health care benefits they offer based on their "beliefs" is, in essence, allowing that employer the right to impose conformity to their beliefs upon it's employees. It is protecting the rights of the employer at the expense of their employees.



I think it's just fine that certain religious institutions don't approve of birth control. Preach whatever idiocy you want from the pulpit. Don't offer tubal ligations or vasectomies in your hospitals. Don't carry condoms, the pill, Depo, or whatever in your pharmacies. I can see where these issues could conflict with your (imo, ridiculous) "beliefs". However, I do not think you should be able to impose those beliefs on your employees by withholding coverage that is considered standard throughout the rest of the country.



I get that this will, in the end, all come down to political maneuvering and that the decisions reached will really be about reelection concerns instead of freedoms and rights. That pisses me off even more. However, I am pleased that we, as a country, are at least beginning to chip away at this long-standing problem. In the end, it just means that those of us who want to go on the pill or depo will have to continue to do what we've been doing for years: Our doctors fabricate a medical "need" for it (i.e. abnormally heavy menses), and our Catholic insurance then covers it.

Krista - posted on 02/11/2012

12,562

16

847

Mary's exactly right. If employers are allowed to take "immoral" things off of their coverage, then it opens up a gigantic staff of worms. Would the janitor for a large Jehovah's Witness church not have blood transfusions covered? Would the staff at Tom Cruise's production company not have any psychiatric services covered?



It's bullshit, and I really DO wish that the Catholic Church would remove the big, honking child-molesting beam from its collective eye before it starts worrying about everybody else's motes.

Mary - posted on 02/17/2012

3,348

31

123

Kaitlin - Krista and Jen's examples are precisely why I, as a Catholic, think that the Catholic Church does need to submit to this mandate.



We live in a time where Christianity remains the predominant faith in this country. Christians (including Catholics) thinks that this current state means that they should have a say, and a great deal of influence, in shaping the laws of our land. However, I believe that there will come a time when this is not so. Be it Muslims, Hindus, or Flying Spaghetti Monsters, I do not want a precedent set where any other religious belief system can impact my (or my daughter's) rights as a citizen.



I do not want my employment benefits to be administered at the whims of another's personal religious beliefs. I do not want to allow for the possibility that my neighbor's hemophiliac child will be denied coverage of blood, platelet, or plasma transfusions because her father's software company was bought out by Jehovah's Witnesses who consider receiving blood products a "grave moral evil".



It's not that I object to the Catholic Church having an exemption. I object to any religious institution having an exemption in this secular arena.

Mary - posted on 02/14/2012

3,348

31

123

"Actually, what the Church wants is for the laws of the country to be just so that there is no need to violate them."



Anna - the point you are missing is that the Catholic Church (and any other religious institution) should have absolutely NO say in federal laws. A religious belief is of no importance in determining what is or is not just. Religion is an entirely separate entity from morality, ethics, and justice when it comes to our society's laws, rules, and regulations. Any church's stance on any given law holds no more weight than that of PETA, the NRA, NFL, or whomever. They are as free to voice their opinion as I am, and exercise those opinions when they vote.

Jodi - posted on 02/10/2012

2,694

52

175

Personally, I feel like contraceptives should be free. Period. Everyone bitches about all these kids in welfare because so and so got knocked up, didn't put their kid up for adoption and now that kids' in foster care. Everyone bitches about welfare moms, about moms with 5 kids and 5 daddies. (btw, I don't bitch about these things, everyone's got a story, I don't know what it is, I don't really care! lol) So, free birth control, people who don't want to get pregnant, don't have to risk getting pregnant, people who can't afford birth control or condoms, don't have to worry about that anymore either.



In short, I have no problem with this, as long as women can still get birth control.

86 Comments

View replies by

Krista - posted on 02/17/2012

12,562

16

847

I do not want a precedent set where any other religious belief system can impact my (or my daughter's) rights as a citizen.



Exactly.



A lot of the people arguing in support of this seem to be lacking imagination: they cannot imagine a day when Christianity is not the dominant religion in America.



And yet, I can imagine that were there a hospital in America that was owned by the Church of Islam, and Muslim religious diktats were being imposed upon non-Muslim employees' health insurance...well, I can't see the current crew being QUITE as supportive, to be frank.

Krista - posted on 02/17/2012

12,562

16

847

Kaitlin, you keep complaining that we're not discussing the issue.



But we are.



These examples and analogies that we're giving are not off-topic. They're used as a way to illustrate what an incredibly slippery slope this is.



If you allow ONE religious employer to refuse to pay for ONE type of treatment, based on conscience, then you automatically open the door for ALL employers, religious or not, to refuse to pay for ANY type of treatment, if the treatment conflicts with management's values.



So my example of the receptionist with HIV is actually a very valid one, and I'd like to see you answer the question directly: would you, or would you not, support a Catholic hospital if they chose to decline coverage for an unmarried employee's HIV treatment?

♥♪Megan♫♥ - posted on 02/17/2012

6,435

12

72

Freedom of religion also means freedom of religious persecution for non religious people. This includes your employer not being able to force their religion on you.



I'm oddly having this same arguement on Pundit Kitchen (under Missplaced New Yorker) because I support UHC and have explained that in Canada private and public sectors do not get to pick and choose what is covered by our provincial health care. The only thing provincial health care won't cover are trial medications because they don't know all the risks involved. A Catholic employer in Canada is not allowed to dictate whether or not an employee can have BC covered by their health insurance so why should a Catholic employer in the US be allowed to do so by crying 'religious intolerance'?

[deleted account]

"Also, Catholic Charities is the number one charitable institution in the world and are actively working to combat childhood hunger in America. If the new HHS mandate stands, all of their employees will lose their health coverage OR Catholic Charities will close its doors. Think about all the hospitals and institutions that are Catholic- they would close their doors as well. How is that helping the economy or helping provide health care to anyone?"



I see, if the RCC is required to follow the same laws that everyone else has to follow, they'll have a tantrum and deny everyone else care.



I really really honestly do not understand why you feel they are allowed to bypass a law that everyone else has to follow just because they toss the word religion into it.



My example still stands. I was specifically pointing to a religious organziation that is not allowed to get a free-pass against a national law just because their religion says they should.

[deleted account]

Kaitlyn, the point wasn't discrimination and I thinkt hat's why you dont' see the point. You stopped at the discrimination. My analogy was an example of how a religious organization is required to abide by labor/employment/non-discrimination laws just like any other non-religious employer. You don't get to bypass certain laws that everyone else has to follow just because you put a religious slant on it.

Jennifer - posted on 02/17/2012

714

1

28

Actually, there is a religion that is already well established that does not allow vaccinations, nor almost any kind of Western medicine. The 'First Borns' are very strong in our area.

Kaitlin - posted on 02/17/2012

1,107

21

451

I'm sorry, Krista, my intention was not to mother you or put you down. I wasn't trying to use scare tactics, I was putting them in quotes because they were not factual, not because I was trying to demean you. I am also simply asking that we, as adults, can handle a debate using fact and reason, not hate filled what-if statements and mudslinging like political commercials. I would like to get as much information from all sides of this issue as possible, which is why I'm still in it. I know my opinions are my own, as yours belong to you, but there should be reason behind our opinions, don't you think?



The end of your most recent post poses another question that is related to this topic, but not the actual issue- that is, treatment of a disease (HIV in your proposition, but also, pregnancy). Now, I am not debating pregnancy as something that must be treated with BC or abortions, etc. That is an interesting topic but not what we are debating here. Therefore i find fault in your argument. You can't compare the two unless going into that (and calling pregnancy a preventable disease). The same is true with vaccines.



The idea of main stream v. individual religion is interesting. We are a nation that claims freedom of religion, so, like you said, anyone could start a new one (and they do). However, those who are anti vaccine have explained that it is based off of what they believe to be facts, not a set of religious beliefs. They claim it is because it causes diseases like autism (and a various number of others, though from group to group the types vary) and have affects such as (again, it varies). Their claims have been proven false time and time again. Again, they are not claiming religion here.

The other idea here is that this is something that is not JUST backed by those who don't believe in BC. Yes, the majority of those immediately affected would be Catholic organizations and individuals, however this can further restrict other religious organizations- if society deems something okay and acceptable, despite more than 1/6 of the world disagreeing with it, a country that promotes religious freedom can force their laws into the church.



For those who claim to want Church and State to be completely separate, how can they respect one another when one forces another to actively do something? Again, the Catholic employers are not forcing women to not use BC, they simply don't want to pay for it because it goes against their fundamental beliefs.

Krista - posted on 02/17/2012

12,562

16

847

Krista, please keep your tone in check. There is no need for rudeness.

None of the 'points' you made are valid.

Anti Vaccine individuals have no religious backing, that is completely different. This is about freedom of religion.




I have a mother already. I don't need another one. Thank you.



Now, back to the debate at hand.



My points (love the snotty scare quotes, by the way) are completely valid.



What is religion? It is a belief system that is supported by specific dogma.



If an exception can be made for mainstream religions, then exceptions should be made for ALL religions. And there is nothing whatsoever stopping me from rounding up several people who agree with me, and starting a religion that, among other things, thinks that vaccination is a sin. And if that's the case, and my religion grows enough to the point where we can run a hospital, then I can now legally ask our group insurer to not cover vaccinations.



Too far-fetched for you?



Fine.



Let's use our Catholics as another example, then. Catholics believe that premarital sex is a sin, right? It's a pretty big no-no for them.



So, I'm a receptionist at a Catholic-owned hospital. I'm single, but engaged to be married.



My fiance cheats on me, and transmits HIV to me.



Do you believe that my employer should have the right to ask our group insurer to refuse to pay for any treatments to combat my HIV, because I contracted it from premarital sex?



After all, if they paid for my treatment, they would be effectively condoning the fact that I had sex before marriage, right?

♥♪Megan♫♥ - posted on 02/17/2012

6,435

12

72

Jennifer, my mom feels the same way, but she did it too. She also wasn't happy that I was planning on having sex before marriage, but that's why she made sure I was on the pill.



I'm seconding what Mary said because not even the nursing homes are fully Catholic anymore.

Kaitlin - posted on 02/17/2012

1,107

21

451

Mary, I'm a little confused by some of the things you said that don't directly relate to this conversation, may I message you via COM?

Jennifer - posted on 02/17/2012

714

1

28

I guess I will just never understand this debate. I'm a Christian, I don't think premarital sex is right, and would prefer that no one does it. BUT, I did it. Very easy for me to stand here now, happy in my marriage, and throw stones at people who are doing it now! (wow, I feel like Newt!)



My (former) employeer has all employees come in and pick from buffet style insurance plan. They pay a certain amount, we make up the rest. My boss, and even the payroll clerk had NO IDEA what I had covered. They ONLY knew I did carry insurance and how much it cost me. I think that is the way things should move. Take other people's noses out of my business! And, yes, it was important to me, due to the fact that one of my daughters struggles with some issues that the school did not want to deal with. As a parent, it is my right to keep her issues private. If my employers(the school!) had been able to get into my insurance, they would have known much more than they do now.



Again, I do understand what the church is saying. But they will not stop sex by dening BC. If they could stop sex, I think they'd start with their clergy!

Mary - posted on 02/17/2012

3,348

31

123

Actually - you are quite wrong about those Catholic hospitals closing their doors. Most of them would simply be taken over by others. I know for a fact that in my area, the three biggest Catholic hospitals would be absorbed into either the U of MD healthcare system, or Johns Hopkins. These two biggies have already absorbed other community hospitals, and would be chomping at the bit to take over places like Mercy, St Joe's, or St Agnes. As a former employee of one of these 3, I would view that a great thing for both employees and patients alike.



Most Catholic hospitals ceased being anything more than Catholic in name only many years ago. They really are secular institutions these days that are run by secular people. The only time you would see a priest or nun in the hospital I worked in was if they were a patient. Even the pastoral care department was run by lay people - most of whom weren't even Catholic (the head of that department is a Lutheran woman). If a patient wanted to receive last rites, we had a list of "on-call" priests in the area who may or may not come in. Twice I called that on-call priest to come in for a fetal death at the request of the parent, and was refused because it was in the middle of the night, and hey - you can't baptize a dead baby, so they may as well wait until morning.



I realize that there is no way for them to opt out. I don't think there should be. I think all employers, no matter what their religious beliefs, should be held to the same standards. I am a Catholic, but I don't believe that "my" church or any other should be exempt from following the rules of this country.

♥♪Megan♫♥ - posted on 02/17/2012

6,435

12

72

Kaitlin, we're all adults here. If you don't like Krista's tone then... don't venture out in public is all I can say.



Also Catholic hospitals are public sector instititutions so it wouldn't be right for them to opt out while obtaining public funding and sitting on government land. This bill that they're pushing for isn't just for Church organizations, it's also for ANY employer who disaproves of any type of medical coverage can decide what they want to cover based on their beliefs

Kaitlin - posted on 02/17/2012

1,107

21

451

Mary, that is indeed what the Church will be doing should this mandate hold. It's very sad. I've posted several times why this is, but I understand it's a ways back and re reading can become tiresome, so here's the deal:

The way the rule is written there is no way for Catholic hospitals or other institutions to opt out. That's why this isn't primarily about contraception but about religious freedom. Contraception and the Catholic church are easy to pick on because of the things you said but the fundamental principle is that the government should not be telling religions and religious groups to purchase products or provide funds supporting products that those groups find morally objectional.



Also, Catholic Charities is the number one charitable institution in the world and are actively working to combat childhood hunger in America. If the new HHS mandate stands, all of their employees will lose their health coverage OR Catholic Charities will close its doors. Think about all the hospitals and institutions that are Catholic- they would close their doors as well. How is that helping the economy or helping provide health care to anyone?



The issue is whether or not the government can force the purchase by a religious organization of a product that that religious organization considers evil. Or more simply, whether or not the government can force a religious institution to actively violate its own beliefs.

Mary - posted on 02/17/2012

3,348

31

123

Kaitlin, how can you possibly argue that this mandate is discriminating against the Catholic church (or any other)? It is simply setting the rules that all employers must adhere to. It is including Catholic employers in this group.



Granted, it is sending the message to all religious groups that they are not allowed special treatment or exemptions based on their beliefs. They are not preventing them from holding or preaching about these beliefs.



There really is a simple solution to this. Religious institutions can simply withdraw from being employers, and stick to being places of worship. That way, they are not forced to comply with any employment laws or mandates that may offend their morals or beliefs.

Kaitlin - posted on 02/17/2012

1,107

21

451

Krista, please keep your tone in check. There is no need for rudeness.

None of the 'points' you made are valid.

Anti Vaccine individuals have no religious backing, that is completely different. This is about freedom of religion.

Most Christian churches do believe premarital sex is sinful. They cover prenatal and birth care because they are PRO LIFE. To not do so would be against everything they believe in.

And, like Jen's topic, I already addressed the black/white deal- never mind that this isn't an issue at this time, but it's completely different. That is about discrimination, which is not what the Catholic church is doing. It IS what the mandate is doing.



If anyone would like to honestly and openly discuss this matter further, I would love to debate it, using respect, reason, and compassion.

Krista - posted on 02/17/2012

12,562

16

847

What if your employer was a Jenny McCarthy level moron? Not vaccinations for you or your kids under my watch! And if your baby contracts whooping cough and dies because you couldn't afford the out-of-pocket cost for the vaccines? Well, he obviously didn't have a strong natural immune system, so it was meant to be.



What if your employer thought that premarital sex was sinful? No prenatal care for a pregnant, unmarried employee. And if you wind up with severe toxemia and die in childbirth? Well, you should have kept your legs closed, you slut.



What if your employer had a religious objection to miscegenation? You're white and your wife is black? And she has cancer? Too fucking bad -- she's not covered, because we disapprove of your sinful lifestyle. We refuse to pay for something that goes against our beliefs. Maybe when your wife dies you'll learn your lesson and will marry a nice white girl.

Proud - posted on 02/17/2012

269

28

4

Jehovah Witness don't have janitors in their Kingdom Halls. They clean the KH themselves.

Kaitlin - posted on 02/17/2012

1,107

21

451

Jen, I'm confused as to how that is relevant- in your situation, the organization is discriminating against one group of people- obviously this is not right. The Catholic church is not asking to discriminate against anyone. By not providing or funding BC to anyone (meaning, it's not about to supply condoms to men here, either) they are not denying rights to anyone.



To others, this is an issue of discrimination against groups of people that believe this way- forcing them to pay for something they believe is a 'grave moral evil'. The organizations are NOT discriminating against anyone else here. There is nothing that says a person can't get BC or use BC while working for a Catholic organization- the organization just can't provide or fund it because it's a 'grave moral evil'.



Also, Katherine, that statistic is from PP, and is completely, 100% incorrect. Consider the source.

Mary - posted on 02/17/2012

3,348

31

123

I agree, Jen. This whole issue has absolutely nothing to do with religious freedom. I wouldn't even classify it under discrimination as it applies to the Fair Employment Act, but rather under the purview of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Obama is essentially setting up a minimum wage for health benefits.



I think people forget that "benefits" are, in essence, a part of your income. Access to health insurance, through the contributions of your employer, are a part of your financial compensation. This mandate only seeks to set a minimum requirement for that part of an employee's compensation. It seeks to eliminate some of the huge disparities that exist in people's health care coverage based upon who their employer's are.



I personally support UHC, and the idea of providing equal healthcare to all the citizens of this country. In the absence of that, I think it essential that the federal government step in and make a host of things basic requirements of any health insurance policy. To me, this is no different than establishing a minimum wage, or requiring employers to pay overtime after 40 hours.



Perhaps all of these morally outraged religious leaders should start lobbying for UHC, and get out of the business of administering health insurance altogether.

Krista - posted on 02/17/2012

12,562

16

847

Exactly. For me, freedom of religion ends where it starts to adversely affect other people.



All I know is that this entire kerfuffle is probably making a lot more people look at universal health care with a slightly more open mind!

[deleted account]

"Jen, I'm unsure of your question- it has nothing to do with discrimination of one group (women), it's the government discriminating against one group and their beliefs- can you give me an example of a discrimination law and/or employment law that you are comparing it to?"



If this is part of employment law and these organizations wish to be places that can legally hire employees then they are under an obligation to abide by the law. Let's give an example that I feel is more apt. A man gets a job with a hospital run by a sect of Southern Baptists that hold very unusual views but also is one that feels that blacks are sub-human. They have a policy that states they will not treat anyone who is non-aryan. This is a violation of discrimination laws and even though they are doing it out of sincere belief in their religion, they cannot do that. The man who got the job has a wife who is black. The hospital will not extend marital benefits to cover her or their children because their sincere religious beliefs are that blacks are the cursed children of Ham, etc. This is also illegal. Are we violating this church's rights by requiring them to abide by the laws?



One can say that blacks could go to other hospitals but it is the only one in reasonable distance (25 miles). (like many areas dealing with the Catholic Health System where they are often the ONLY hospital around.) One coudl argue that the man could work elsewhere but he's a RN and this religious organization has a monopoly on the healthcare in his area.

Katherine - posted on 02/15/2012

65,420

232

5195

98% of Catholic woman already use it anyways! That's a HUGE percentage.

♥♪Megan♫♥ - posted on 02/15/2012

6,435

12

72

Anna, this is part of your original post that I replied to: Again, I stress that the issue here is only that Catholics do not want to be responsible for this.



You may not have felt that you had been speaking for all Catholics, but it came out that way.



Kaitlin, I fail to see how this is discriminatory or unconstitutional. In countries that have UHC Church employees are covered unquestionably for treatments and medications and no other country's churches get to kvetch about a choice. And BTW I was raised Catholic. I can't see why the Catholic church believes it should hold jurisdiction over its employees where other companies don't have the right to do so.

Krista - posted on 02/15/2012

12,562

16

847

This is interesting. Here are the results of a recent NY Times/CBS news poll, which asked, "“Do you support or oppose a recent federal requirement that private health insurance plans cover the full cost of birth control for their female patients?”:



Sixty six percent support this federal requirement; only 26 percent oppose it.



CBS’s polling team sends over a partisan breakdown of the answers, and it’s even more striking:

Even Republicans support this policy, 50-44.

Independents support it by 64-26.

Moderates support it by 68-22.

Women support it by 72-20.

Catholics support it by 67-25.

And even Catholics who attend church every week or almost every week support it by 48-43.

Jennifer - posted on 02/15/2012

714

1

28

I have not read the other posts here, this is just my two-cents! Personally, I do understand the church's stand, but I don't agree with it. No one would agree that a church could tell it's employee what it can and can't buy with their paycheck money, why do they allow them to meddle in insurance? Church's are suppose to change people with love, not hate and fighting. I don't see why Obama had to give them anything, and I feel this was a screwy thing to do. The other thing is, not all women who take BC are using it to prevent a birth. It can stop peroids, even out hormone levels, lower risk for breast cancer, cut down on cysts, and even treat depresion and manic epsoids for women with bi-polar. I know lesbians who take it! (lol, that's probably not a good thing to say to a pastor fighting it though!) I just don't see allowing a church to dictate what their employees can seek medical attention for.

Kaitlin - posted on 02/15/2012

1,107

21

451

Jen, I'm unsure of your question- it has nothing to do with discrimination of one group (women), it's the government discriminating against one group and their beliefs- can you give me an example of a discrimination law and/or employment law that you are comparing it to?



Allison, I you're right about how it's getting paid for, and the discussion IS about whether or not it's violating a constitutional right. That's where this debate should be focusing. I understand that you disagree, and I really like how you articulated that. That being said, I don't think I 'pick on' Obama any more than any other president. I don't hate him, I don't follow him blindly, the same as I would to any other world leader. I think there are lot of people that DO follow him blindly and a lot of people that DO just hate on him, and I don't think either are appropriate- I think other presidents have been picked on just as much, though, to be honest.

The point that I disagree with him on is that he isn't giving 'women' any more of a choice, because they have a choice and will always have the choice of what to put in their body. However, he is now taking away the choice from those who strongly believe it is wrong to support it or not. I am aware he is not forcing any one person to take BC, but by being forced into financially supporting it, it takes away the choice from a large group of people. (side note: this site is not an accurate account of general opinion on ANY issue, not just this one)



Well said, Anna.

Anna - posted on 02/15/2012

134

18

1

Megan-

I have never suggested that all Catholics think as I do. I know very well that they don't. All Catholics are the same only in as much as all agnostics, Muslims and atheists are the same. I am presenting from the side of Catholics who are upset about the mandate. Thought that was clear.



Krista-

My short answer? Yep, I'm fine with that. As I've said before, I think a huge part of our country's healthcare problem is that such an important decision as health insurance is left up to the employer. Makes no sense for so many reasons. Until that changes things like this will unfortunately be an issue. I don't think that a mandate such as this that underscores this practice is helpful. Religious freedom aside.



It's been fun ladies. It's not an issue we will change each others minds on but it's been informative to hear the other side from you all. Good debating. I'm out :)

Allison - posted on 02/14/2012

105

29

4

wow this got so heated. so really i'm just gonna say what i feel the bottom line here is. obama's concession is only on the surface. the dioceses (sorry if i spelled it wrong) will be paying for birth control one way or another. whether its through tax (social security, medicare etc...) or through thier coverage for thier employees. i honestly dont believe obama is stepping on any constitional issues here i think people just want to make it out to be that. which is the real issue is this a constitional problem or not. he is not saying you cant practice here or anything like that or telling the dioceses you have to give the contraceptives out, he's saying they have to give the option honestly i wish all these people would just stop picking on him already, has thier ever been a president picked on by the gop as much as he has been? it sad.

♥♪Megan♫♥ - posted on 02/14/2012

6,435

12

72

Anna, how wonderful of you to speak for ALL American Catholics. Does it not occure to you that the majority of Catholic women do use some type of birth control or have used some type of birth control in their life? This would include my adopted mom who also took me to Planned Parenthood to get me the pill so I could avoid getting pregnant before I was ready. Not EVERY Catholic is up in arms about having to be covering someone's birth control. I'm sure most would rather cover birth control than an abortion. So please speak for yourself from now on instead of all American Catholics.



I'm adopted, I'm quite sure that if my birth mom thought about it and knew more about it she could've used birth control and prevented having me and having to go through the pain of giving up a child.

Krista - posted on 02/14/2012

12,562

16

847

So Anna, would you, or would you not, be okay if a Jehovah's Witness church hired an accountant, but demanded that emergency blood transfusions not be covered under his insurance?



Would you be okay if someone went to to work as an assistant for Tom Cruise's production company, and was told that his insurance would not cover any form of psychiatric services?

Anna - posted on 02/14/2012

134

18

1

I was trying to demonstrate that what the employee does with his salary is not the responsibility of the employer. What benefits the employer supplies with his company's profit is the responsibility of the employer. Whether or not the offense is criminal is not relevant to the question of where the responsibility lies. Sorry that confused you all.



Again, I stress that the issue here is only that Catholics do not want to be responsible for this. They are very aware that their employees will use BC regardless of who is responsible but that is not their concern.

♥♪Megan♫♥ - posted on 02/14/2012

6,435

12

72

I've worked in health care and I've never seen anything on a care plan stating that the patient be given more time to watch porn. Adult or otherwise. And this was in the US.



I can't picture anyone in the Canadian government stating that taxes should be going to fund porn therapy either.



Nor can I figure out why the Catholic Church believes that only relgious beliefs should be in the law. Thankfully not all Catholics are like that- but I did have a woman who said I couldn't be Catholic because I had sex outside of marriage. Churches can't have any say in federal law because it's unconstitutional.

Tam - posted on 02/14/2012

216

2

28

I agree, Megan. And the thing is, if we were to take the word 'child' from the analogy, it still wouldn't really work. Something like contraception is an industry standard for coverage, hence why it is in the spotlight. It's more or less expected to be covered by an employer who offers health coverage.



Porn is not an industry standard. I would not realistically demand my employer supply me with porn because I work for him, because it is not generally found under the benefits portion of the hiring process.

♥♪Megan♫♥ - posted on 02/14/2012

6,435

12

72

Anna, how did we get from something legal like birth control to something illegal like child porn?



The next time someone comes up with an analogy it had better be something that is also LEGAL.

Anna - posted on 02/14/2012

134

18

1

If my employee used his salary to buy child pornography, I would not be responsible for his action. If I supplied child porn for the break room as a benefit for my employees, I would be culpable. The first example is his action, the second is mine.



Maybe it looks like splitting hairs. I think there's a difference.

Krista - posted on 02/14/2012

12,562

16

847

You can't say that your contraception is your business and yours alone if you are requiring someone else to foot the bill. Well, some people don't want to be in the business of contraception and this mandate is saying that they must be.



The Church's statement is utterly illogical, though.



Because either way, they're paying for the pill.



They're either going to pay for it via health insurance, or they're paying for it by way of their employees' salaries.



So either way, their money is being spent on contraception. So this whole pearl-clutching about them being "forced" to pay for contraception is a bit of a red herring, isn't it?

Tam - posted on 02/14/2012

216

2

28

I'm not sure, but I think if you have less than a certain number of employees you don't have to manage health care as a business.



I'm still of the opinion that it should be included with standard health care packages - I don't know the actual numbers but it probably doesnt cost the employers THAT much. But forcing the insurance companies to supply it free of charge will likely give them a reason to up insurance costs more than they already are.

Anna - posted on 02/14/2012

134

18

1

"I think the main crux of the issue here is more that someone is getting special treatment, to be honest."



Tam- Now I think that this is a fair statement. One of the problems I have with this exception clause is that it does not exempt private business owners. There are Catholics there too. There are also non-Catholics who object to the use of BC. There are also small businesses who simply do not offer a healthcare package at all on the grounds that they are a small business and can't afford it (though I admit I am not familiar with how the mandate will affect them. Do you know?). There are also people who work part time and don't necessarily qualify for a benefit package. I think a huge part of the healthcare problem is that our coverage is based on our employment. Our employers change. We lose our jobs. No job means no healthcare. This does not work well and this mandate further entrenches our country into employment=healthcare bondage. That's probably for a different thread though.



"The Church seems to want to be above the law by violating laws of the country they're in."



Actually, what the Church wants is for the laws of the country to be just so that there is no need to violate them.

Kaitlin - posted on 02/14/2012

1,107

21

451

Ladies,t his argument (not debate) is becoming an attack on one group of people, so I'm not even going to address the main issue- especially since there are is no one using reason and logic- you need to find out more truths about the Catholic church- I have not read one argument using fact. If you want to attack them, use FACT. Growing up Catholic, attending a school and/or working in a hospital does not mean you know what they stand for. Do some reading, from a CATHOLIC website or check out their Catechism (it's like an encyclopedia, you can find the exact topic you are looking for)- that will tell you exactly what they believe and why.

Then maybe you can look at the issue from both sides.



On an aside, if you pay for insurance, yo DO have to contribute to everyone else's BC- that's how the funding works. It's economics.

♥♪Megan♫♥ - posted on 02/14/2012

6,435

12

72

Anna, no one is being forced to pay for birth control simply because you're on it. It's a law. I just don't understand why American churches think they're so special. Canadian churches who are working in the public sector don't see themselves as above the law.



Under current US laws it's no one's business what medications the insurance is covering. The Church seems to want to be above the law by violating laws of the country they're in.

Tam - posted on 02/14/2012

216

2

28

I think the main crux of the issue here is more that someone is getting special treatment, to be honest. If it is a requirement for a company like, say, L-3 Communications to provide birth control for it's employees, then it should be a requirement for any other company WHO RECEIVES GOVERNMENT MONEY in any way to assist in their business to follow the same guidelines.



If it is a completely private hospital that receives no government grants or funding or assistance, then I completely agree that they should follow the edicts of their beliefs. After all, if my understanding is correct, an organization, completely private, is fully capable of hiring only the people they deem necessary for their cause, meaning they CAN hire only Catholics that eschew birth control.

Anna - posted on 02/14/2012

134

18

1

"But I don't really feel it's your or anyone else's damn business what I'm doing in my personal life since it's legal."



True enough. Completely agree. And believe me I would like it to stay that way. I cannot stress enough that what we want is to not be involved in it. But by forcing others to help you fund this it becomes other people's business.



Mary- I completely agree with you that costs for these things are astronomical. This is true for many reasons, including the messed up way this country handles health care. Where we disagree I think is how we define 'right to choose.' Do I have a right to say, heat my home at whatever temperature I choose? Sure. Do I have a right to do this cost free? Nope. (and the cost of heating is a substantial one that many have a hard time paying) Having a right to something does not require others to provide this thing for you. It requires them to get out of your way. I would say that in most cases, this included, it requires inaction from others in response to your action. Does that make sense?



I realize that this is a very heated issue in which most will never change their mind. Really, I'm just trying to rationally present the other side.

Mary - posted on 02/14/2012

3,348

31

123

Anna - for many, taking contraception out of their benefits package is taking away their right to choose. By forcing them to obtain this directly out of pocket, it puts many forms of contraception out of financial reach. The way that our health system is set up, the self-paying individual is paying substantially more than the group rates negotiated by insurance companies. The cost difference between a vasectomy on an insurance plan for someone doing self-pay is astronomical.



Not sure if read my earlier post - but I happen to know this from personal experience. I have worked for a Catholic employer my entire professional life. I was actually rather responsible, and bought my first home at the age of 23 while still single. I really could not have afforded the 27 bucks a month that the pill would have cost me (I have no idea what it costs now - but this is what it would have cost me in the mid 90's).



After I got married, and had fertility issues, I really learned this lesson. At the time, the church was still very much against IVF, and would not cover it. When I sat down with the financial counselor at the fertility clinic, I was able to see the huge differences in costs between those who are insured, and those who pay directly out of pocket. Had I not, at the time, been able to switch to my husband's policy, we never could have afforded it. We are talking thousands of dollars here. So yes, the church was very much taking away an employee's freedom to choose by determining what they will and will not cover.

♥♪Megan♫♥ - posted on 02/14/2012

6,435

12

72

Anna, I was talking about the whole sterilization thing in general. If you get a hystorectomy you're obviously sterilized. Why should it be up to the Church if they've decided to be for profit and have insurance if someone wants to not have children? I don't know of any Catholic personally who would stand against someone taking control of their body (except maybe my grandma, but she's dead) because God granted us free will to do what we will and know right and wrong.



Again, Churches in countries that have UHC are required to cover their workers in everything including birth control. Unless the American Church offices are going to give out raises for each person when they have more children than they can afford they should just cover it. They decided to go into a public sector and supply health insurance. In Canada you can't pick and choose what medications you want to cover even if you are a Church, why should the American churches feel they're any different.



And sorry, but just because my insurance is covering my birth control I don't believe it's anyone's damn business if I'm using my INSURANCE WHICH I PAY FOR to purchase it. The church is taking away a woman's right to that by determining which medications they will and won't cover. I'm Catholic and using Implanon which was covered by Insurance and was completely fine with my Catholic parents. But I don't really feel it's your or anyone else's damn business what I'm doing in my personal life since it's legal. This is 2012 not 1950

Anna - posted on 02/14/2012

134

18

1

The Church does not want to take away a persons right to choose BC. It wants to not pay for it. Frankly, it blows my mind that so many of you ladies don't see the difference.



You can't say that your contraception is your business and yours alone if you are requiring someone else to foot the bill. Well, some people don't want to be in the business of contraception and this mandate is saying that they must be.



Megan- The Catholic Church absolutely does not teach that hysterectomy is a sin. Maybe you know Catholics who think that it is but they are speaking against the teachings of their church.

♥♪Megan♫♥ - posted on 02/13/2012

6,435

12

72

Kaitlin, first off miss, I was RAISED Catholic and my family is still Catholic. Most aren't anti Catholic or anti religion we're anti double standard and anti deprivation of a person's right to choose. And women (like my aunt who is an accountant for the Diocese of Rochester) don't have much of a choice if their health care insurance decides not to cover something they need or cover them.



Let me tell you something about this terrible thing called sterilization after another aunt of mine went back to work after having my cousin she had some serious medical issues that led to her having an emegancy hysteroectomy. According to some people that's a sin and the Catholic church shouldn't have to cover that. Well that's well and good for them, but what about for a woman who would die without one? Should the church or their EMPLOYER really have that much say over their body?

Join Circle of Moms

Sign up for Circle of Moms and be a part of this community! Membership is just one click away.

Join Circle of Moms